www.ditl.org

Okay, so if the Federation uses an explorer in place of a purpose-designed battleship, then it becomes a battleship?

I understand the point; I just disagree that if you use something for a role it wasn't designed for, it becomes that thing. If I used a Zodiac raft for a coffee table, it would become a coffee table? I think it would just be a raft in my living room.

I have to agree with Tsukiyumi here. A ship may serve multiple roles, but it should still be classified as its original designed role.

I'm in agreement; I'm saying that Tsu's hypothetical A-team Saturn wagon conversion would be equipped for a different intended role than for what it was originally built. In other words, if he happened to use his stock vehicle once to move a squad of troops, then no - it's not an IFV. If he purposefully armors, arms, and otherwise modifies it with the intent of moving and supporting troops in combat situations, then it's an IFV.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Okay, so if the Federation uses an explorer in place of a purpose-designed battleship, then it becomes a battleship?

Exactly - just as the AMCs of the World Wars were warships, despite the fact that they weren't originally designed for war, and were shit at fighting. The GCS is the Feds most heavilly armed ship, it's manned by the Federation's military, and is repeatedly used as a warship - therefore it's a battleship.

I understand the point; I just disagree that if you use something for a role it wasn't designed for, it becomes that thing. If I used a Zodiac raft for a coffee table, it would become a coffee table? I think it would just be a raft in my living room.

If I used a raft as a coffee table, I'd refer to it as "the coffee table". It'd be a somewhat unusual coffee table, but a coffee table nonetheless.

I have a lobster trap as a coffee table; I've placed many cups of coffee on it, but I've never trapped a lobster with it.

A friend of mine used a couple of wooden boxes for stools. He always reffered to them as stools.

My long standing opinion hasn't changed. I'm still with Tsu on this. The entire reason of classifying a ship is to decide it's primary function. Heavy weapons and shields don't automatically make a ship a battleship. Starfleet classified the Connie as a Heavy Cruiser, therefore that is what it is. The only way it could officially ever be anything other than that would be to re-class it, which we have no cannon data that they ever did.

It would officially be a lesser-spotted Rigellan dodo, if Starfleet chose to call it that. It wouldn't change the role it was employed in.

I'd say this one is just a matter of personal opinion. I'd just tell people to get their damn feet off my raft, personally.

Mark wrote:Heavy weapons and shields don't automatically make a ship a battleship.

No, but heavy weapons and shields built with the intent of being the biggest bruiser in the fleet, and to be used in wartime for the purpose of the main battery of a task group, DO make a ship a battleship. When Japanese troops were being bombarded by US battleships on the Pacific islands, I'm fairly sure that they didn't care much whether the Americans called those ships "battleships" or "bathtubs."

I bet the Americans did.

Take the Defiant. She was Classified as an escort ship but she had some of the best firepower in the quadrant. Yet she was still an escort ship, even if she was used as a fleet command ship.

"Escort ship" can cover the entire range of warships from corvettes to battleships. In any event, Sisko explicitly stated that "experimental escort" was simply a PC label.

True, but it was still the label termed to it.

Agreed, but a label is just that - a label, not necessarilly an accurate description of the ship's role.

What a government chooses to call its ships has no bearing on what the ship actualy is. If Russia tommorrow started calling all their warships "surf boards" would that change the fact that they're carriers/cruisers/subs? No.